5 comments about Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World.

1. The book is about Sergio Vieira de Mello, a servant of the United Nations, a zealot of human rights, and a man who fought to save the world. Sergio was one of the most brilliant diplomats of the time, and many were waiting for his appointment as the Secretary-General of the United Nations - a wish which would never realize because Vieira de Mello was killed by a bomb in his Iraqi mission in 2003. His noble path is described in the book.
   
   Sergio was a great diplomat; he could negotiate and compromise on an unprecedented level. Apart from being indispensable for his missions and loved by his colleagues, Sergio managed to charm dictators, war criminals, and influential leaders; he was the only man in the United Nations who charmed George W. Bush. Vieira de Mello did not judge, neither did he blame the past; he looked to solve the problem. Due to his remarkable diplomatic skills, he solved crises in Lebanon, Cambodia, Bosnia, East Timor, Iraq, among many others. He was appointed as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2002 and was nearing the appointment of the Sec-Gen in 2003, when his life was tragically lost.
   
   Sergio was a man of high moral principles, who respected the United Nations above all. Impartiality of the United Nations was another rule of his work; prestige and dignity of the UN were his highest priority. Sergio carried the UN charter in his pocket all his life and cited the Resolutions of the Security Council by heart. His last words were "Don't pull out," relating to the UN Iraqi mission. Those words were said when he was buried below the rubbish after the explosion in the UN Iraqi office.
   
   Ultimately, the book shows what the United Nations could be. I was as lucky as to read the draft chapters of the unpublished book in the class of Samantha Power two years ago; the class was called "Does the UN matter?" Vieira de Mello gave the answer to that question with his life and even more so with his death. The United Nations deserves respect and influence - especially due to leaders like Sergio Vieira de Mello.



2. I finished this book over a month ago. It it is unusual for me to take thirty days to review a book. However, this book continues to ricochet through my being.
   
   Admittedly, Samantha's last book, The Pulitzer Prize winning "A Problem From Hell - America in an Age of Genocide" occupies a prominent place in my personal library. Chasing The Flame - Sergio Vieira De Mello And The Fight To Save The World" has earned the space next to her former book.
   
   Once I began, I couldn't put Chasing The Flame down. Power has a literary and researcher's skill that that is unequivocally unique. The documentation and sheer magnitude of the effort are mind-boggling. Why? Why, one may ask would someone take the 4 years it took to write this story?
   
   For me, versus many other reviewers, the lessons of Vieira de Mello's life and the most poignant aspects of the book are NOT the failures and demise of the U.N.
   
   Contradictions - the human experience is one inhabited by contradictions. Some of those contradictions are self-initiated and self-imposed. Others are systemic and emanate from socio-economic, social structural inequities that evidence themselves throughout human history. Our response to these contradictions (as individuals, groups, organizations and government entities of all types) is particularly poignant. Vieira de Mello's life and career are evidence of that. This book is not an end to the discussion of issues it covers...it's a chronicle of a whole host of issues we can and must begin to discuss and act upon.
   
   The human capacity for evil - Once again, Power chronicles this truth. I remain distressed at the ongoing capacity we as a species have for ignoring human atrocity and our penchant for "standing by" and/or failing to respond immediately and adequately to these situations as they arise --- as well as our penchant to ignore the conditions that continue to spawn them.
   
   The United Nations - I am unequivocally convinced that the charter of the U.N. has been bastardized into a current state that has diluted the essential capabilities that the world currently requires from it. It's not the UN's fault. Frankly, it's ours and the member governments that comprise it. I am also hopeful that a restoration/re-engineering of the U.N. (long overdue) newly empowered and FULLY funded has the unrealized potential to prevent and address vastly more effectively the human suffering that is thriving all around our planet.(with prognostications of it's ever increasing frequency and depth of seriousness).
   
   The face and being of anger seems to have a myriad of revitalized and new expressions of both form and substance here on Earth today. As stated by Jean-Salim Kanaan, a French-Egyptian political officer stationed in Iraq: " And God knows how much harm angry people can do."(p.436). We seem to have a tendency that has evolved with NGO's where we avoid the angry people (particularly the one's who are armed and inflicting death and destruction on innocent people). Vieira de Mello's life is evidence of an approach to the contrary. He sought out these people and spoke directly to them --- unarmed. Power's work has substantive implications for the urgent genesis of a new approach by the U.S. and others to foreign policy and international diplomacy.
   
   Another incredibly poignant truth that we must revisit that emanated from the life of Vieria de Mello is captured in the following: "Although Vieira de Mello became an explicit advocate for human rights late in his career, he had lobbied on behalf of human beings for decades.After his death, the quality of his that was most often admired was his regard for individuals. His colleagues took note of how surprisingly rare it was, even in the world of humanitarianism, to find and official who actually looked out for human beings, one by one, as he or she encountered them." (p.530). This attribute of Vieira de Mello's life is pregnant with meaning for the individual citizen of planet Earth today. Imagine what might be possible if people began to act upon the quote above and actively begin to seek out the rescue of orphaned children, refugees etc. who require a new chance at life via removal from the hell of their current life conditions? --- 1@aTime. Perhaps we're being encouraged by Vieira de Mello's life to consider new ways of living --- I'm speaking to those who have a home, resources, seats at the kitchen table and a refrigerator with food in it. In a world where the delta between the haves and have-nots is becoming increasingly wider, the individual with resources continues to be ensconced comfortably with increasing social distance from the suffering that inhabits this planet. Vieira de Mello's life story begs the questions: "What can (must) I do? How can I help? Can I become a part of the solution?"
   
   Vieira de Mello's statement that, "We live in fearful times and fear is a bad advisor" (p. 364) is a clarion call to a reawakening from the darkness of the nightmare that has cast it's pall over all of us, particularly during the past eight years. Hope and dreaming of new possibilities always sheds the light that destroys fear. However, it must be accompanied by new, risky, courageous forms of action that Vieria de Mello's life demonstrates for us all.
   
   "Humanitarian crises are always political crises" (p. 219) is a truth revealed throughout the life of Vieira de Mello. Again, a wholesale readjustment in the thought processes and actions of governments and our approach to human rights atrocities (and their prevention) continues to be a tremendous challenge, yet an opportunity, during this, the 21st century.
   
   For all those who are trumpeting their excitement over the possibility of a forthcoming movie about this book --- I remain reluctant. There is simply no substitute for reading this superbly crafted literary art form. Samantha Power has dedicated her life to bringing us Pulitzer Prize caliber insights into the plight of human rights atrocities that continue to decimate this planet....now chronicling the amazing life of one of the foremost participants in the amelioration of this devastating reality - Vieira de Mello's Chasing The Flame deserves the same serious Pulitzer consideration as well.
   
   I was changed by this book. You will be too. Buy it, Savor it. Ponder it. Get involved. Speak out. We can change this world. Together.
   
   Bill Dahl



3. The ingredients that make for a great biography are the same as those that make for a great work of fiction: A strong cast of well-developed characters, a rich setting of details and complexity that draws the reader in, a gripping narrative that keeps the reader turning the pages... Witness, for example, Walter Isaacson's biography of Kissinger, a tour-de-force recreation of the world of 1970's international diplomatic intrigues. Mr. Isaacson, of course, may have an easier task, as Henry Kissinger is not a martyred humanitarian hero and in many ways much easier to poke fun at. But Ms. Power's subject, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was also a fascinating character in his own right. Like Kissinger he was a man of striking contradictions - a prodigious workaholic who could live for months on end on a spartan diet of rice and chocolate bars in the field, yet at the same time a bon vivant of such vanity that he carried around packets of fabric wipes so his starched khakis would always remain spotless after a day through the mud.
   
   Vieira de Mello had led a fascinating life, and Ms Power's book did paint a well-rounded portrait of the man. However, the book could have benefited from much better developed supporting characters, not to mention more insightful expositions of the complex events that revolved around them. It was also too long, and plodding at times. Over all the book would have been a much better read if the author had focused on fewer episodes of VdM's life with more depth. This is the sort of book that the reader may wish to read selectively. Personally I found the chapters on the Balkans, Cambodia and Iraq to be the best reads.
   
   Nonetheless, the book gets 4 stars for the unique perspective it provides into the workings of the UN. Its many fly-on-the-wall accounts of high level UN decision-making provides not only insights into substantive policy debates but also the clash of personalities. Calling this a "fawning hagiography" is unfair, although the author does tend to be overly reverential and a bit too ready to take people's words at face value. The Vieira de Mello that emerges, for all his strengths and foibles, is an apt embodiment of the UN. High-minded and sometimes truly heroic, he was generally at his best working on projects of relative moral clarity, over which there was broad consensus, such as the successful return of over 350,000 Cambodian refugees to their homes. When he ventured into more murky political waters, the qualities that served him well at the UNHCR became liabilities. A knack for charming powerful people is useful when negotiating food shipments. The same eagerness to be liked turns into a tendency to side with power in tough political negotiations. In Bosnia he was so ready to cave in to the Serbs that people started calling him "Serbio". And it wasn't simply a matter of pragmatism - at the end of his tenure he was so determined to remain on good terms with all sides, that he spent an entire afternoon shopping for a going-away present for Milosevic, even as other branches of the UN were investigating Milosevic fo war crimes.
   
   De Mello never mastered the art of saying no. When it counted, such as during the debates leading up to the Coalition invasion of Iraq, his instinct was to stay on the fence rather than risk courting unpopularity. He did not speak out when the US began building pressure for war in the fall of 2002. He declined to take part when Rund Lubbers, the UNHCR commissioner, attempted to rally senior UN officials to jointly oppose the war on the eve of its outbreak. Even in the face of mounting evidence of Coalition mis-steps in Iraq, de Mello, then serving as the UN High Commissionerr on Human Rights, was so evasive that one British TV interviewer lost patience and asked outright, "Is the human rights commissioner too scared to speak out against the United States?"
   
   Cynics claimed that he was angling to succeed Annan as Secretary General down the line. He might or might not have been, but he was certainly loath to antagonize powerful people in the Bush administration. His reward was to become the administration's preferred choice to head the UN mission in Iraq. De Mello often insisted that even if he had spoken out, it would not have made one whit of difference in US policy. Perhaps. But his own life might have been saved.
   
   In the last chapter of the book the author drew a number of lessons from de Mello's many achievements. All very worthy, but perhaps an additional lesson can be drawn from his failings: For a statesman, popularity is the least achievement of all.



4. Samantha Power reveals in this book why she is deserving of a Pulitzer Prize. A humanistic view of a man who was not only a human but also one of the world's greatest humanitarians. Changed my corrupted view of the UN into one of understanding and appreciation. Thank you to Sergio and his family & friends for your dedicated service to humanity.



5. About half-way through Chasing the Flame, Sergio Vieira de Mello advises a younger UNHCR official to "be very graphic because that is how you grab people's attention. And our success at UNHCR depends on our ability to get and hold people's attention."
   
   It's a piece of advice that the book's author, Samantha Power, brings to life throughout the book. From the Khmer Rouge shooting at a UN helicopter that was lowering a housing container into the jungle, "not aggressively...but trying to alert the strangers that they were on the verge of making house in a minefield," to convincing Serbian smugglers to sneak 80,000 blankets into Bosnian territory by handing them certificates saying "UN Consultant," to Laurent Kabila's high-heeled lizard-skin disco dancing shoes (worn together with his starched uniform), Power has an amazing ability to pull out complex details that both grab/hold the reader's attention and act as metaphors for the bigger picture.
   
   These are not the affect-oriented visuals that one associates with UNICEF commercials - the exceptions, like a scene of a Rwandan man committing suicide by drowning himself in a shallow puddle, are so powerful they could never fit into a cliché - rather, these moments are effortlessly telling precisely because they are complex and many sided. Power's writerly decisions turn the book into a page-turner as gripping as any novel, but their cumulative effect creates a picture of layers of our world that we don't normally see. The details accumulate and become more than themselves.
   
   Other reviewers call Sergio a "hero." I don't know about that. I'm not even sure I came out of the book liking the guy. What did come through to me was a well-rounded picture of a very interesting man who kept learning as he shuttled from one tragic focal point of the world to another. Through Sergio, Power paints a real-life picture of the ultimately unsolvable tensions between pragmatism and idealism, and, more generally, of the way power and people interact in some of the most difficult conditions on our planet. If each detail is an expert brush stroke, then the painting, in the end, is not merely a portrait of Sergio. It is a complex portrait of a complex world, with Sergio simultaneously a fully fleshed out, conflicted, real person, and an archetype - the human being that, in the end, is the fulcrum of all tensions and decisions. What makes this book so important, besides its art, is that these are the real life tensions and decisions that have defined the world we live in.
   
   To be honest, I only picked up Chasing the Flame out of respect for its Pulitzer-prize-winning author. A biography of a bureaucrat is not a subject that I would normally find interesting. But Power chose her subject well. For all his faults, Sergio was an extraordinary man whose willingness to keep learning from the awful historical moments in the centre of which he continually found himself -- which he, in fact, chased throughout his life -- makes him a powerful lens through which Power clears away layers of murk to show us a side of our world that is normally obscured. Chasing the Flame doesn't give easy answers, but it does give a graphic picture of the man who would have been the next UN Secretary General, and of the world behind the headlines in the international section. It's an extraordinary book.

5 comments about Saddam's Secrets.

1. Have only read a small amount so far, but already would rate it very good and something all americans should read.



2. It's a shame that the public has to dig for the truth rather than rely on the press to be honest, but that's the situation. If you really want to know what was going on rather than buy into the juvenile theory that this was somehow all about W's oil buddies, this is a great start.



3. This is an important book that every American should read. Gen Sada is an amazing man, an eye-witness in Saddam's regime who lived to tell about it and claims to have actually seen WMD with his own eyes. Fascinating!



4. Finally, the inside scoop! Questions of WMD answered! Why isn't this information made more readily available to the American People? This is a story of one man's faith and honesty in the worst of situations! You want to know the truth? Read this book!!



5. I enjoyed the information in the book. Poorly written but never the less informative

5 comments about Nicholas and Alexandra.

1. nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.



2. I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.



3. Far and away one of the best biographies I have ever read. Massie masterfully gives life to the doomed, tragic last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, and his family. I was absolutely rivetted from page one by this outstanding work. The book gives a sympathetic portrait of Tsar Nicholas, his wife Empress Alexandra, and their ongoing struggle to cope with their haemophiliac son, Alexei, heir to the Russian throne. Alexei's illness indirectly leads to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the family's murder. An astonishingly good read, and one I highly recommend to all who are interested in this era of history.



4. Robert Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a biographical study centered on the lives of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia. Massie's portrayal of the last ruling Romanavs is like many other works on the subject in that it is poignant, dramatic, and vibrant; but never dull. However, Massie's work stands out above other works on the subject for its thorough account of the lives of the imperial couple and most of all, its sympathetic portrayal of them.
   
   Nearly all works of the period agree that Tsar Nicholas II was not the blood-drenched despot the Bolshevik revolutionaries claimed him to be, and although he may not have been as benevolent as his contemporary Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary, he at least lacked the bellicose nature of his German counterpart (and early advisor), Wilhelm II. Massie's account demonstrates how Nicholas II was ill-prepared to ascend the throne in after Alexander III, but unlike the contention of other historians, Massie makes a reasonable case in defending the intelligence of the fallen autocrat.
   
   Massie's account of Nicholas and Alexandra does not absolve the couple from their failure to prevent the collapse of the reign and ultimately their country, but it does partially excuse their inflexibility and fatalism on the serious of misfortunes that continued to plague Nicholas from the very day of his coronation; when hundred of Russian peasants were stampeded to death in a overzealous crowd on Khodynka Meadow. Yet, no Romanov apologist can ignore the detrimental influences on Nicholas's reign, including his wife Alexandra, a German Kaiser, and especially a corrupt starets. That such an array of persons from various strata of society could at times impose their will on a man raised to be an autocrat was a tarnish on Nicholas' character.
   
   Despite his habit of being easily swayed at times, Nicholas is not one-dimensional in Massie's account. It is noted how Nicholas ignored the advice of able ministers and most of all; remained unyielding to grant the masses of his subjects the representation and constitution they desired--until it was too late. Even Massie can be counted among the historians who muse whether the Romanov dynasty might have survived had the Tsar been more accommadating to the popular demands of his people--or if war had not erupted in the manner it did in 1914.
   
   Although Massie's work is very thorough, it only briefly touches the clandestine operations of the Tsarist police state in rooting out revolutionaries and assassins from its masses prior to 1917. Indeed, other works (e.g. Edmond Taylor's "The Fall of the Dynasties") are careful to point out that Tsarist police included a host of known double agents whose loyalties were perpetually in doubt. While Massie makes note of that insecurity in his account of Prime Minister Peter Stolypin's assassination in 1911 by a Tsarist agent, he fails to explain how widespread the problem actually was. Indeed, Taylor describes as monarchy's slide to collapse as a "suicide", not because they were unable to stop that slide, but rather because they were unwilling.
   
   Just as it is difficult to excuse the corrupt system of Tsarist counter-revolutionary activity, historians are also unable to justify the Russia's policy in WWI of placing the needs of France above that of her own. The disaster at Tannenburg early in the war is described in detail by Massie, and is correctly portrayed as a premature offensive launched by Russia (with the support of Nicholas) to rescue its beleagured ally from the German onslaught through northern France. Indeed, even after his abdication and arrest, Massie notes how Nicholas pleaded with Kerensky to continue to support the Russia's allies in the war effort--a mission with which the Provisional Government leader would complete in the summer of 1917 with disastrous consequences. Although Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not outright label the monarchy as a principle agent of its own destruction, his book nevertheless provides a strong case to the conclusion that the last rulers (and their ministers) of the Romanov dynasty practiced an inexplicable policy of self-immolation.
   
   It is perhaps this mystery--or lunacy--of the Romanovs that continues to fascinate so many readers 90 years after their unglorious deaths in their Siberian imprisonment. Undoubtedly, the story of the last Romanovs will continue to perplex students of history for decades to come, and Robert Massie's work will will remain the foremost account of the twilight of Imperial Russia.



5. Massie has written a masterpiece.
   Graceful, informative ,never boring.
   One of the best introductions into the insanity
   of the Red Revolution and the rise of communism.

5 comments about See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism.

1. This is probably the best memoir I have come across by a former CIA case officer. Baer is spot on when it comes to how government operates. Who could ever imagine that those in the field are often times prevented from achieving superior results by risk averse management, or that those in Washington are too concerned about politics and/or "drinking and whoring" to comprehend what's truly unfolding beyond our borders? The truth can be ugly.



2. Robert Baer's account illustrates how American intelligence gathering capability was decapitated by bureaocrats and politicians. The author paints a vivid picture of work in the field as humint (human intelligence)was relegated to the back bench. Our enemies could not have done better than our own political establishment in neutralising the CIA. This book tells it all.
   
   Kingmaker



3. For those that think the goverment (not CIA) is here for you. This book should show you otherwise. For those conspiracy theorists...this should be right up your ally. Where is the justice in this country when such fine individuals can suffer through so much to keep us all safe....all in vain and all only so the richer can get richer. The government doesnt run this country, the "big oil" does. This will never change. Great book, great read.



4. Excellent story that provides an inside view of life on the ground for CIA operatives.
   
   Much of the book revolves around the Middle East and Mr. Baer's search for those responsible for bombings in Lebanon. One name that comes up frequently was a terrorist by the name of Imad Moughniyah. This person was involved in the Beirut embassy and Marine barracks bombings, the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, kidnapping of Terry Anderson, hijacking of TWA flight 847, etc...By coincidence, Moughniyah was assassinated in Syria on the day that I finished reading this book. I must assume that was good news to Mr. Baer.
   
   Some of the stories he tells of bureaucratic ineptness do not engender a great deal of confidence in the CIA..."As the civil war in Afghanistan started to boil, I repeatedly asked for a speaker of Dari or Pashtun...to debrief the flood of refugees coming across the border...I was told there were no Dari or Pashtun speakers anywhere...Headquarters instead offered to send out a four-person sexual harassment briefing team."
   
   Near the end of his career, he seemed to descend into a self-destructive pattern of behavior that only got worse after he returned from the Middle East. In my opinion, he had spent so much time looking at the trees (and individual leaves) that he got lost in the forest.
   
   His closing comments, however, are right on the mark..."It all comes down to the point that we have to start listening to people again, no matter how unpleasant the message is."
   
   Overall a good book about very brave men who were willing to take significant risks for their country.



5. A rambling CIA agent's tale of working in the Middle East pre Bush Administration. Baer recently appeared on television after the 2008 car bomb death of Imad Mugniyah in Syria and clearly knows about which he speaks because, in this 2002 book, he describes his investigation of the 1983 bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut and the death of William Buckley, the CIA agent. He fingers the killer. Beyond the scattered nature of his writing, the crazy dangerous life of this CIA agent is detailed including the bureaucratic handcuffs and leg irons placed on the operational side agents from home base at Langley. Baer, no friend of Anthony Lake, describes how the operations division of the Agency was hamstrung during the Clinton years. The Crown Book publishers editing is very poor; e.g., Aldrich Ames is Rick, Robert Hanssen is spelled Robert Hannsen. Sentences, often conversational in format, run on and off the page. The CIA editors were more exacting than the Crown editors who appear out to lunch at the time of final editing.

5 comments about Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation.

1. Even though I'd seen and heard multiple items about the founding generation, I was pleasantly surprised that I learned something new from this work...namely that the discussion of the location of the new capital was seriously sidetracked by an abolitionist delegation's visit (which was even blessed by fellow abolitionist Ben Franklin shortly before his death). Highly Recommended, a great yarn.



2. NOTE: THIS REFER REFERS TO THE UNABRIBED AUDIO CD VERSION
   
   First of all, I'm not going to get into the controversy over whether this book is totally accurate historically. If I knew that, I'd be writing a history book rather than reading one. The fact is, no one can be 100% sure of everything that happened or was thought 250 years ago.
   
   That issue aside, it's an interesting book but it gets bogged down in far too much detail and analyses. It isn't scholarly enough for a truly academic treatise, but not "entertaining" enough for a popular history. It may therefore bore some readers who prefer a more humanized anecdotal telling and infuriate purists who want proven facts rather than occasional speculation.
   
   The reader is good, but his voice tends to take on a droning quality if listened to for long periods. There is not enough differentiation for the quoted passages, so it's sometimes hard to tell what is a historical quote and what it the author's statements.
   
   From reading other reviews, I think it's safe to say that this is book may be too lengthy and "boring" for young students (which may be a sad commentary on both our youth and our school system) yet not scholarly enough for serious American history fans. The problem is, who's left?



3. I'm giving this book 4 Stars. I was going to go with 3, but based on the works readability and style I believe that there is something to be taken away by everyone. The information presented by Ellis will interest the scholarly historian as well as the casually curious reader. The former of the two readers may busy themselves more with disputing some of the poorly cited, questionable material presented within the pages of this book.
   If I have it right, Ellis was attempting to portray the founders as a group of thoroughly human participants that possessed the omniprescence to grasp the scope of what their actions meant to history. This fundamental paradox of presentation left me scratching my head in search of the authors true motives. Was Ellis attempting to unite us with the men and politics of the Founding generation or was he furthering the mystification of these men, by adding to the accumulated material that presents them as histoical deities.
   Regardless of the overall impression the book leaves on you, I am sure, the reader will find themselves entertained from start to finish.



4. In the afterglow of the HBO series on John Adams, I grew interested in some of the founding fathers, many of whom had seemed boring to me ever since I read their bios in grade school. Ellis does a highly intelligent and readable job of laying out the personalities, conflicts and battles of the whole group during the first years of the nation. I particularly like the chapter on the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Also great is the chapter about George Washington, who had seemed a cardboard character to me until my interest was piqued by the TV series. Ellis is more than a little inclined to repeat himself in that particular way academics have, although his ruminations are likely to advance the story, although a bit wordily. That aside, this book is worth digging into by anyone who wants to know what those guys were really all about and who doesn't want to be told by some ideologue what to think about them.



5. If I had to recommend one book to read in a year, I would recommend The Founding Brothers.
   
   Joseph Ellis recounts the early stages of American history with six historically-based tales about the Founding Fathers or, as he thinks of them, the Founding Brothers. The stories of Jefferson, John Adams, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Franklin (more of a Founding Grandfather, Ellis asserts) highlight how the period after the Revolutionary War was the most politically treacherous in our nation's history. It was the Founding Brother's talents and foresight that allowed them build a country out of a revolution which, in most cases, falls short of ideals because of personal ambitions.
   
   The stories of the Founding Brothers is completely factual, however, the stories are written so that the reader can see the emotional and personal character aspects that the Brothers experienced during the early years of our nation. The stories are interconnected and woven so that even though each of the stories highlight different facets of the nation's early history (the ratification of the Constitution, the question of slavery, the infamous duel at Weehawken, the location of the new republic's capitol), the major players remain the same. Their personalities are built together to create interesting and insightful history.
   
   This book won the Pulitzer Prize. After reading, I found that to be no surprise at all. It's an excellent read with a blend of wit, conviviality, learnedness, and intelligence.

5 comments about Mein Kampf.

1. AN AUTOBIGRAPHICAL BOOK OF HITLER.
   A PRICELESS MANUSCRIPT OF A MANS DESIRE TO CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH HE ALONE WILL RULE,A MILLION MAD MEN WILL HAVE WRITTEN BOOKS LIKE THIS AN NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY YET HE CAME CLOSE TO ACHIEVEING HIS VISION,HOW EVER DELUDED HE WAS, HOWEVER EVIL HE WAS ,THIS BOOK IS A TEMPLATE OF HIS VISION AND VIEWS.



2. From my point of view this is probably one of the most important books written. This is one of those books that changes history. Yes, this means I completely disagree with what Hitler said about books. He mentioned that books don't change history, but a good speaker/leader does. While this is very true, books usually exist in conjunction with this. I think you need both because the book is far more timeless than the speaker and often times a book precedes a major turning point for a movement. Look at texts like "The Bible", "The Principia," or Euclid's "The Thirteen Elements". All these texts were turning points in history and changed the way we look at the world. "Mein Kampf" would forever change the way we looked at the world as well. It literally moved nations to act... in opposition of such a major power struggle.
   
   I do not advocate Hitler's methodology in what he did, but I do acknowledge the profound impact it has left on the world and the major advancements we were all forced to make in realms such as technology. Now that this book is part of history you can't help but think of the "what if..." scenarios as I read through this massive text, I'll play into these concepts as I touch upon specific areas. Now I'm not a World War II or World War I historian by any means, so it was a hard book for me to read some of the more minute details Hitler referenced in this book. However, I read it more for the prospects in philosophy.
   
   This particular edition is split into two different volumes with an excellent introduction by the translator. Volume I was printed in 1925 and then Volume II came out in the year 1926, so they were written very close together. The first was mostly philosophical and recounts his childhood growing up. The second was more a general history of the political party and how to deal with foreign nations. It's interesting that Hitler didn't put out any other books after these two and I assume it's because his involvement in politics took up much more of his time and no longer had the free time to write. However, they did find another book he was working on after the fall of the Reich and is now published as "Hitler's Second Book". This edition is great because it compared the first printing with the second printing and footnotes the discrepancies. It also adds in details on the people Hitler named specifically in this book who would be relatively unknown to the rest of the world outside Nazi Germany and especially helpful to me because I haven't read that much about this period in history to know the extreme details. In Volume's I and II Hitler specifically references incidents in World War I that really helped shape the beliefs he has here.
   
   Anyway the introduction that prefaces this edition is rather lengthy, but well worth the read. It adds more of the historical background into the text you are about to dig into. It has interesting anecdotes about Hitler's involvement with the party, like in the text he states he was the seventh member of the DAP, but later it was found out he was 555th and this was corroborated with an unsent letter from Drexler, one of the founders. In fact when historian's looked at the membership items that were left behind after the war they could see that Hitler's had been altered physically. Also the introduction has an excellent overview of the printing of this book. Such as how it is not allowed to be printed in certain countries. Luckily in my country no such restrictions apply to any printed document, so I am free to read and review whatever I wish, regardless of how inaccurate a printed document is. I'm definitely glad there was an introduction even though it added another twenty pages onto an already daunting read. The introduction also forewarns us that Hitler can have a tendency to ramble in forms that eventually make little sense. I'm glad this warning was stated because when reading this book it was quite clear when Hitler felt particularly passionate about the subject he started to go off on these ridiculous tangents and tirades, often times in run on sentence form.
   
   In the spirit of this book, I will review Volume I separately from Volume II. So first we discuss Hitler's philosophy and growing up. Personally, I think Hitler should have stuck with the philosophical approach and left politics to the politicians (regardless of the fact this didn't mesh with his philosophy). Hitler's main point in doing the things he believed in was to change society for the better. It's very clear that he truly thought he would be saving the world and putting Germany in the forefront of being that savior. Hitler's conclusion was that it would most easily be changed through moving into the political realm. He specifically outlined his plan for getting access to the political realm and the backing of the people through propaganda. He even spells out that the propaganda doesn't always have to be true; it just needs to draw a person's attention. Realistically, when we look back on what he was planning on doing and how he did it, none of the world should have been shocked that this is what would happen. He pretty clearly outlines where his prejudices are and why he has them.
   
   Hitler starts his story as a young boy growing up and becoming disillusioned with the world around him. His father wouldn't let him do what he really wanted to do, which was art. He doesn't seem like the over confident Hitler that history portrays today. In fact I would say the movie "Max" starring Noah Taylor as Hitler did a pretty good portrayal of that possibility, only that movie was not about Hitler in his High School years, so it was a little unrealistic. When World War I started Hitler joined the military and I think this is where his confidence in himself really started to take root. This is also where he became convinced that propaganda was the key to winning the war because upon viewing the enemy's propaganda it was better than what Germany was putting out. It would appear his assumption was correct; since via propaganda he got many crowds gathered to listen to him speak.
   
   Probably the most well known facet of his beliefs is the anti-Semitism that brought on the Holocaust. He eventually ended up in Vienna and I think this is where his prejudice became firm. You can see where his theory turns into some sort of paranoid dementia, because before you knew it he was calling everyone on the street a Jew in disgust. This was mostly based on looking at the person and guessing. He believed they had penetrated the newspaper industry and were completely lying to everyone in the world. As Volume I continues you find that eventually this belief grows into him thinking that they also controlled the governments. I think a lot of this stemmed from one other text, which he mentions in this book "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This is a hoax that has existed for a while and first started getting published in 1897. I believe the global conspiracy outlined in that book only solidified what Hitler suspected with his newspaper theory. I was surprised that Hitler had originally wanted to start out as an artist and actually held a few gallery viewings of his work. I wonder at this point if there is any Hitler original art around. If I remember correctly I heard actually wasn't a very good artist. It's interesting to note that as Hitler continues with his tirades I this book, you can tell he has a special soft spot for art because he wants more of that industries presence in Germany.
   
   Overall I was surprised at how little anti-Semitism there was in the book in comparison to the length of the text. I was actually expecting a lot more. Don't mistake me, he took jabs wherever he possibly could and there was an entire chapter dedicated to the subject. However, I felt like in the first volume he spent more time criticizing the Slavs and the Austrians as being a much more immediate problem. It's almost as if the first and foremost problem was his own government and Austria; the issue of the Jewish population was a more of a global problem and probably seemed to be less immediate. You get a wholly different feel by the time we reach Volume II though.
   
   I was also very surprised at the countries he referenced as being respectable, specifically England and America. He must have been greatly disappointed in England when they refused to side with him during World War II and he must have felt doubly wrong about his initial assessment of America when we funded a lot of his enemies. Being an American I found some of his comments curious since it seems he felt we had a dominant German aspect of our country. I found this odd since it was essentially founded by England and France mostly. I couldn't help but think that Hitler was misinterpreting his history or the books he was reading were just plain wrong.
   
   For the most part Hitler is a pretty good writer. I found that he appears very intelligent and very well read, also very arrogant. He has sections that discuss the part of his life where he was looking into the political arena and when he came across the German Workers' Party. He doesn't hesitate to point out how superior his ideas were or how much better things worked when done his way. From the point of view of a leader, this seems counter to what you would want. Since his ability to elevate his own status seems to be his main underlying motive rather than helping his people, despite what he actually says. There is one instance when he was recounting the first speeches given for the party and how the first speaker was rather boring, but when he spoke the crowd became excited and into the words, they stood up and cheered even. History recounts Hitler as a very excellent speaker and I have no doubt this is true, but it's curious to see that he puts himself over his own party members constantly in this book. There were also sections where he got very passionate about a topic that became very confusing, as I explained above. I don't think this speaks to his inability to write, but rather his inability to write clearly when he is really trying to get his point across on a topic he believes as a core problem.
   
   Either way you looked at it, I couldn't help but think by the end of Volume I that Hitler would have been one of the world's most celebrated leaders if he had just put his prejudice aside. This was the case... at least until I read Volume II. Through Volume I he seems to genuinely want to help his people and the world around him. The one major crux in his argument is that he believed in some overly prejudice driven conspiracy. I think Hitler really had to start struggling in the end when it was becoming even clearer that the Jews weren't as well off in Germany as he believed they were, especially during the great depression. I was surprised at his focus on helping the middle class and a seemingly focal point on intelligence and action. It appeared his main push to change the nation was centered on elevating the knowledge of the German peoples as well as moving them to the desire for action to help their nation. I think this is a great point and he's most certainly not wrong about it being needed. However, my interpretation of this concept would be dashed by Volume II...
   
   Volume II made it incredibly clear to me that Hitler had no place in becoming a leader and especially no place on deciding education reform. Shortly into Volume II he has a lengthy chapter on what he plans to do with education to bolster a more national spirit for young Germans and to create what he refers to as a "folkish state". The concept of the "folkish state" is discussed in great length throughout Volume II and seems to be the main focus. One of the first things he was going to do was decrease the amount of time in classrooms and increase the amount of time for exercise. Following this he would decrease the amount of subjects being taught in school. This completely conflicts with his desire for an intelligent Germany, and he also discusses at length how the intelligentsia of the area are all weaklings and spineless. He notes that many students learn quite a bit of frivolous subjects in High School, which is true, but I personally believe that being a well rounded student is far better. I do agree that people need more exercise, this is painfully clear to me living in America, but to sacrifice the access to knowledge is not a viable solution! He complains at length that too many people complain about certain political actions, but being spineless professors they never actually do anything about it. Hitler sought to change this and part of this included that right after High School the population (men) would go directly into the military. Hitler being a Veteran clearly thought his experience taught him strength, so he thought that what was good for him would be good for everyone else. If only such things were true, this is clearly something that cannot be put into practice. A lot of these crazy ideas may have seemed plausible on paper, but realistically they are a fool's errand... an errand Hitler was intent on running! After a citizens completion of Army service they were then allowed into the community to pursue whatever higher level career they saw fit to pursue. His purpose in High School was to expose the students to enough generalities for them to make a choice, which is a good idea, but his plan of execution was fairly far fetched and unrealistic. Personally, in 2008, I don't think High Schools are teaching students enough to prepare them for college or to perform in the working world. So it would seem less education on academics is not the answer, but the world really does need to find some kind of a balance on this subject, even Hitler recognized that and he lived in a vastly different era from our own.
   
   Volume II also takes a drastic turn in terms of anti-Semitism and his foreign relations outlook. England seems to have been demoted into a nation that they could possibly not ally with due to the financial control of the Jewish empire. The United States was also seen as a victim of this disease, but his knowledge of American finance seems to have been quite limited. Granted there were some major firms in the U.S. that were founded by German Jews, namely Goldman Sachs, but what about firms like J.P. Morgan? In terms of the major American firms there was a balance and in the 1930's Goldman Sachs nearly went out of business in the Great Depression, so clearly this racial favoring of economic power was quite unfounded. I think Hitler spoke on these foreign nations rather out of turn because it was pretty clear he didn't know all that much about the nations and had gotten all of his knowledge from books, which may have been biased. For he terms Ford as one of the only free American business men, but in the second printing he no longer names Ford specifically, I felt this was curious. This was a drastic change from my perspective after reading Volume I, where he praised America. So even within his own book he is very contradictory. Also the focal point of being against the Slavs and Austrians has been replaced by Germany's mortal enemy... France. This sort of came out of nowhere, since in Volume I they were not "mortal enemies" just the regular kind. Hitler must have read a lot more on the subject and decided the French were far worse than they once appeared. I find all this curious because he prefaces Volume II, with saying that it's going to be about the party history and formation. The above topics have nothing to do with the party history or its formation, rather Hitler's own pet peeves about the problems that he saw after World War I.
   
   Most of this Volume is spent complaining about current (1920's) Bourgeoisie decision making and discussing what Hitler plans to do to fix that. I personally wasn't buying it, but then again, his book is so long that I doubt many of the general workers ever actually read what he wrote. He did spell out in Volume I that he was essentially going to dupe the masses into following him by creating the best propaganda to get people to go to the meetings. At that point he probably understood the concept of mob madness and let that do the rest for him. He recounts his early involvement with the party as becoming the head of propaganda, which is what he wanted because he believed propaganda, first and foremost, was the fulcrum to a party's success. Hitler even points out that it doesn't matter if the party is well organized at that time if the propaganda doesn't bring the masses in, they will have nothing to organize in the first place. He also discusses at length the rarity of a man who can organize and lead well; I couldn't help but feel that he thought himself to be such a man. He was a brilliant strategist and acutely aware of the power of the threat of violence on the general populace, especially after a major war that was still fresh in peoples memories. One of his main points was that he believed that it didn't matter what the people knew as long as an intelligent leader was looking out for them, and it's clear he believed that he was the person that could truly help the most and should be leader. This is regardless of the violence he would have to inflict; besides he only wanted strong people to be German anyway, so a show of strength went a long way with him.
   
   It's interesting to also note that he clearly wanted to rewrite some of the annals of history to favor the German people. In his long winded explanation of the Folkish State he points out that he believes the Aryan's are the only ones who could ever develop culture. No, he wasn't referring to the peoples belonging to the nation of India, but rather the Germanic peoples. See, the term Aryan comes from India, and I have no idea if Hitler knew this or not, but that's its origin. Indians clearly wouldn't have been high on his list, and certainly didn't qualify as those being able to create culture despite their history of creating that vast nation. Rather, it appears the legend and concept of the Aryan survived and came down to Hitler as the superior race. For some reason he equated that with the Germanic peoples. His whole concept of the white population being the only force intelligent enough to create culture is clearly unfounded. He gets even more contradictory in this concept since he was well aware that Germany was vastly tribal up until the Roman invasions. He states the reason was that "we were a young people". This is just foolishness because it was trade in technology that eventually brought what we call "civilization" today to the Germanic tribes. It has nothing to do with them being the only creative force in the world. He completely ignores the fact that Egypt existed long before as a civilization. I question whether he knew of the Arab city-states of Sumer, but it doesn't explain Egypt. I think Hitler merely viewed them as "uncivilized" or "not a cultured" or whatever other twisted elaboration he wanted to thrust upon them. Either way, he does not explain his reasoning in detail, and just states matter of factly that only Aryans harbor the creative force to develop culture and no one else.
   
   Overall I walked away with reading a superb book, in my opinion. At times it was very hard to read and I will be the first to admit that not everyone will struggle through this thing. There are too many sections of rambling that don't drive home the main points. It all sounds very smart at first glance, but when you sit down and analyze what he's saying inherent contradictions come to the surface. Then it occurs to the reader that most of his language use is merely superfluous for the sake of sounding intelligent (much like this sentence). No one wants an incredibly inconsistent leader (however, I feel like that's all we get at times!). Despite the racial hatred, I am glad I read this book, it gives me a great historical perspective and I now understand where Hitler was coming from. On a philosophical note, it really makes me think of the concept of evil and how that plays into perspectives. From Hitler's perspective he thought he was saving his people. He thought he was actually saving the world from the greatest threat and he really thought the other nations would see the truth that he saw and back him up. Alas, for Hitler he was chasing after rumors and ghosts that didn't actually exist.
   
   In reading this I also couldn't help but wonder about what the world is like today. Lots of "what if" questions come to mind. Despite the incredible tragedy that Hitler wrought on so many lives, it was really the need to ramp up production of war elements that brought the world out of the great depression. So Hitler really did end up helping the world in this sense by provoking everyone to action. He also motivated the world to increase production and research into massive amounts of technology. Atomic energy might not have come to us as soon as it has without this provocation. I can't deny this factor. Also, I have to look at the historical perspective that the country I now reside in is the major world power because of Hitler's actions against Europe! Many people will probably consider these horrible thoughts, but I can't deny the reality of the situation and it leaves me to wonder that if Hitler had become the artist he always wanted to be, would we be in the same situation? Would Israel exist today if he never came to power? After World War II the Cold War went quickly into effect and I wonder if I would even have the internet to relay my ideas if World War II had never taken place, since that also forced us to ramp up production and research in technology. As a philosophical perspective these are all very profound concepts and questions. Despite all the horror that was wrought in the war, if you step back with the utilitarian perspective of Mills and look at all that has come out of the war that has elevated our lives and the economy as a whole.
   
   On the reverse side, what if Hitler had actually succeeded in what he wanted to do? Israel surely wouldn't exist today. Would Christianity be the same? Since he seemed to respect Christianity and he was surely no atheist, so would his disdain for the Jewish people provoke him to edit the Bible down to just the New Testament? I've already said before that he clearly sought to rewrite history and I don't think anything would be out of his grasp. I do know one thing for sure though, I wouldn't have been able to read all the books I have under a reign like that, and I most surely would not have been able to criticize this book as I have in such a society. Thankfully his party was not in power for a long time, but apparently long enough to change the world.



3. Mein Kampf is an interesting and powerful book to be sure. The book is not solely about the Jews, but I am writing my review in reference to Hitler's assertions therein, mostly because I am extremely disturbed by the content of many of the previous reviews. Hitler was a powerful figure, and obviously powerful still.
   
   I was patently shocked how many reviewers were taken in by Hitler's ongoing method of argument. Throughout the book, he makes his points by randomly refering to various notions, texts and occurences to prove his own inaccurate points. Because he stipulates various references, he manages to appear educated and convincing. This is particluarly true the case in Hitler's discussion of the Jews where he randomly refers to Jewish ideals and texts for his own end. What I found most interesting was precisly how little Hitler understood Judaism (although one uneducated reviewer asserts the oppposite), a faith, a philosophy, and ethnicity but not a race. What I found most alarming about many of the reviews was that people, even after all that has happened, bought into his various lines of reasoning on so many subjects, even those outside Judaism. His assertions, particularly about the Talmud, are are vague and highly misconstrued. Judaism is a philosphical religion, an as such is open to ongoing debate at all times even in the 21st century. I was floored by one reviewer who uses Hitler's own tactics to his make outlandish statments about the work of Talmud and Maimonedes, a topic on which he has no keen undertanding.
   
   For sure, Hitler is right about the Talmud in one respect: it is about life today, this moment and how to live it respectfully and well (although Hitler interprets this as a defect). While Christianity focuses on resurrection, Judaism focuses on the now, for tomorrow is uncertain and may not exist; for Jews, the afterlife, at best, is a shadowy thing.
   
   The fact of the matter remains that Judaism is the only religion in which God accepts ALL people so long as they are good; Judaism does not define goodness by Jewishness, but by goodness itself; belief in Judaism is not required. You do not have to be one of "The Chosen," a term which Hitler throws around in incite his readers, to be worthy. (To be "Chosen" in Judaism actually means that you are one who has accepted the burden 613, often contradictory, laws. Those who are not "Chosen" must only accept 7, very easy and innately human laws of behavior.)
   
   Mein Kampf is an important book and is hard to rate because it's can't be subject to "good" or "bad;" it stands outside such clear distinctions. It simply IS. While reading Mein Kampf I can only suggest that you read critically and take his assertions on all subjects with a grain of salt. It is arduous, self-serving and covertly incomplete. If you are at all interested in Hitler mind, this book is an obvious go to. It has people repeating and thus validating his injustices even now.



4. Hitler was a grand socialist. He proposed state control (regulation) of industry, economic interventionism, universal healthcare, and:
   
   "We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. "
   
   Oh, wait, that is just good old fashioned welfare statism a la Paul Krugman and H. Clinton.
   
   The fact that we universally recognize Hitler's racism as evil, while adopting the same collectivist welfare statism, speaks to our ignorance.
   
   Until individualism replaced collectivism, we will continue to see injustices against the individual from both the Liberals and Conservatives.



5. It seams odd, VERRY odd to have purchased this book. I am neither a Nazi, Neo Nazi nor simpathiser of ANY sort or degree!!!! You have NO idea
   how much bull I have recieved for just haviiing it, especially from my jewish aquaintances, but I think it is IMPORTANT to learn from the past. "You Know Who" was a MONSTER, a mad MONSTER, undeniabely!!!!!!! He was, however unfortunately, also a genius!!!!!
   I felt compelled to read this book in an attempt to find some degree of understanding and insight into how ANYONE could be SOOOO TWISTED, even EVIL!!!! For one man to do such things to another, let alone hundreds of thousands. His existance was a tragedy on ALL of humanity, a scar which can never be erased!!!! If humanity doesn't learn from it's mistakes it will be condemned to repeat them!!!!!!! There is knowledge in ALL things, no matter how horable and/or tragic!!!!!! LEARN!!!!!!!

5 comments about The Essential Barack Obama: The Grammy Award-Winning Recordings.

1. This CD set provides a remarkable and powerful insight into the man who is running for President of the United States. Hearing the written words in his own voice is a fascinating way to learn more about Barack Obama. I highly recommend this set for anyone who wants to capture the history of this election on CD and also enjoys listening to books as an alternative to reading for long trips in the car, etc.



2. These audio books make for informative and pleasant listening while I am driving,working around the house or walking around my neighborhood. Barack Obama's narration is clear, interesting and expressive. I would recommend it to anyone.



3. The Grammy award winning recording of the Essential Barack Obama did not disappoint me at all. I wanted to read his 2 books and thought since he is such a great speaker with a dynamic speaking voice,I would get the recording of his books.I sit back,close my eyes and listen to his words and the ways he intended them to mean.I never bought an audio book before,so this was quite a treat to enjoy.



4. I bought this CD for my daughter as a classroom tool and she did use it, along with web clips of the other presidential candidates, in her English class. She tells me that Obama is articulate and has a beautiful voice so this CD is a joy to listen to -- so much so that she won't let me borrow it and the multi-disc set is packed away and going to Europe with her this summer. There are abridged versions of both his books and an excellent introduction on these discs. When I bought this, I didn't realize it was such a bargain. Highly recommended. I guess I'll be buying my own.



5. These two books together are a wonderful look at Senator Obama's life and his character. The "Dreams From My Father," reflects the character-building life that he led, thank to his mother, and grand parents, as well as the intelligence and standing of his father, who died when Barack was young. You get a great sense of his concern for mankind and his desire to help others.
   
   "The Audacity of Hope," describes his feelings about the pressures and potential pitfalls of running for and holding public office. He tells how he was able to keep to his ideals and the teachings of his mother and grandparents throughout his political career.

5 comments about Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream.

1. Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of Johnson is not a lengthy tome, and it covers the life of one of the most interesting, practical, effective, troubled and troubling figures in American politics sometimes in too cursory a fashion. Anyone who has read what Caro has written (so far!) in his multi-volume biography of Johnson will naturally wonder how some critical events are almost completely absent from this biography, and others get only the slightest attention. But you can't be brief without cutting. Prof. Goodwin's insights into Johnson's character seem a little shallow compared to Caro's--sometimes, they sound a little too much like Johnson's own rationales. On the other hand, the book's rather positive tone on its subject is a worthwhile contrast to Caro's strongly critical take, and there must have been much to the charm, humor, and charisma of Johnson which is absent from Caro but reflects better here. Finally, in the absence of Johnson's years as vice president and president from Caro's epic--can I wait another ten years?--Goodwin's strong focus on those years is very useful. Of course she is an excellent writer and the book is a fun read; her understanding of the mechanics of the executive branch and the presidency's interaction with Congress benefits very likely from her close association with Johnson, and provides much illumination into how government can be utilized in the hands of a powerful, determined, energetic, and strong-willed leader. For anyone interested in Johnson, the successes and failures of the era, or the history of American government, it's a must-have and it is certainly an excellent, enjoyable read.



2. Goodwin takes on Lyndon Johnson in a biographical sketch that has a very familiar and intimate attachment for her. She served as an aide in his administration, 1967, and then later after him leaving office was asked to worked on his memoirs. There is no question that she liked and was fascinated with Johnson. Within her book she examines the power and coercive nature that moved him from small town Texas to the power halls of Congress, Senate and the Office of the President. Within the Congress and the Senate, Johnson's natural abilities really come to fruition allowing him to gain control over the Congress then the Senate. This allowed him to move legislation through faster and more efficiently than had previous been accomplished. Goodwin shows how, at this time and place, these branches of government were ripe for this kind of leadership to flourish. I'm not sure that this kind of individual control could or would happen again. Stalled in the Vice-Presidency under Kennedy, Johnson moved into the doldrums. After the Kennedy's assassination, he was brought quickly back into action and with decisive steps would bring the Nation back from mourning. His work on Civil Rights was tremendous and would have insured his place forever in the history books as one of the great Presidents but for Vietnam. Vietnam consumed him and Goodwin explains how the abilities that helped him in the Congress and Senate turned on him and would eventually run him from office. Out of office, with only the Texas ranch to occupy his time, he would deteriorate mentally and physically. Finally Johnson would succumb to death on January 22, 1973 after Nixon announced the dismantling of the "Great Society".
   
   The book is a fascinating look at the political arena of the turbulent 60's and what was happening within the walls of the White house. It is an interesting look at the endless pursuit of power and decisions that created the roller-coaster ride of Lyndon Johnson. The one area that I felt that Goodwin lingered too long on was trying to psychoanalyze Johnson. She tries to determine what made this tremendously talented man function as he did and why he made such good and bad decisions. However she does the good biographer approach of not holding back the good or the bad but letting the readers see the man as he was. The book is well worth the read and addition to the history shelf.



3. I liked this book and learned alot about 'the man' LBJ that I did not know. Is it over analyized from a 'psychology' standpoint - I dont know. I think it is important to understand the inner workings of a persons mind - even from that persons early childhood - to fully understand how a person will act later in life, especially in very difficult situations.
   
   BTW I did not see anyone write in their review that this book was originally published in 1976 - only 3 years after LBJs death. Im not sure if the 1991 edition is revised. Interesting as well in the original 1976 edition the author has her name as Doris Kearns (not not Doris Kearns Goodwin) although she was already married to Goodwin.



4. When I bought this book, I was warned by a cousin of mine, who teaches history at GW, that the book would contain a lot of phsycology, and he was right.
   
   Now, this is still a very good book, second only to Master of the Senate in terms of biographies about LBJ, but I found the phsycology a little bit boring. That is the only thing that prevents me from giving the book 5 stars.
   
   There is a lot of interesting insight, helped along by the fatc that Goodwin knew LBJ, and interviewed him repeatedly. I would advise everyone interested in LBJ, the Presidency, Civil Rights, or Vietnam to read this book. It is great.



5. An amazing biography of a man who might have been one of the best presidents in our history had he not been seduced into the disaster of Vietnam.
   
   Goodwin had unprecedented access to Johnson and weaves her personal insights into a well told story about a fascinating man.

No comments about The Obama Nation.

5 comments about A Remarkable Mother.

1. Very quick service. I got this book for my mom for Mother's Day and she loved it. I recommend it to anyone and use Amazon.



2. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was lovingly written by a son who adored, respected, and loved his mother very much. Lillian was such a force in the White House, and it sounds like everyone from every country who ever met her just loved being with her. She's was a woman that we could all learn from....she didn't take from anyone...even the President. The book was inspiring to me...she went into the Peace Corps at 70....enough said....very good book!



3. This was a quick read, but well done. Mr. Carter's mother was definitely her own woman, but Mr. Carter treated her always with respect and love. A great tribute.



4. Loved the book. It was an easy afternoon read. My husband and I took turns reading it to one another while sitting on the dock sipping cold beer. It is one of those days you hold in your heart. Laughed, cried and hated to see the end. Miss Lillian was some kind of woman!



5. I purchased this book for my 86-year-old mother for Mother's Day.
   She said she enjoyed it very much and learned more about Mrs.
   Carter than she knew.